The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of MPD-2021, specifically regarding property classification and liability for conversion charges.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner, the proprietor of a hotel “City Hotel” (premises bearing No.3990, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi) is running this business since the year 1982. Various permissions/licences were required by the petitioner which had been obtained from the local bodies. They were being issued to him from time to time. His last licence was renewed for the period 2005-06 vide a communication dated 31.3.2005. Separate applications for renewal of his heath trade licence had also been submitted which had accordingly been issued. On 23.3.2009 the petitioner again applied for renewal of his health trade licence. However, the same was not renewed. A demand dated 26.3.2009 was raised upon the petitioner seeking certain documents. This included the structural stability certificate of the building. These documents were furnished to the Department. Contention of the petitioner is that the area where the hotel of the petitioner is located is a “special area” falling in the walled city. A certificate had been issued by the Corporation on 4.7.1980 declaring the petitioner’s property to be in local commercial area. Clause 16.2 of MPD-2021 exempts the petitioner from payment of any conversation charges; particularly those premises which lie in a commercial area. Clause 16.2(5) of MPD-2021 ensures that a status quo of such properties has to be maintained. The demand by the Department dated 13.01.2009 seeking payment of conversation/parking charges for renewal of his heath trade licence is thus illegal. It is liable to be set aside.

2. Counter affidavit of the respondent corporation is on record. His stand is evidenced by their counter affidavit as also by their additional affidavit which had been directed to be filed by them. Their stand is that the property of the petitioner (bearing No.3990, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi) falls in a residential area; the street on which it is located has been incorporated in the list of notified roads/streets in MPD-2021 as “mixed use land”. Accordingly the petitioner is liable to pay conversion/parking charges; his property falling in “mixed use land”. It is denied that the property of the petitioner falls in a local commercial area and not in a residential area. It is clarified that the benefit of the letter dated 15.12.1980 (relied upon by the petitioner to advance his case that it is a local commercial area) is not available to him as it is in fact not a document of the Department. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that certain RTI queries have been raised by the petitioner but he was not able to substantiate his plea that this property was ever designated as a local commercial area. He is not entitled to the benefit of clause 16.2 of MPD-2021. Redevelopment of the walled city even otherwise cannot be linked to the demand of conversion charges which would be a distinct issue; the liability of the petitioner to pay these conversation charges is writ large.

3. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. Contention in the rejoinder is reiterated to the effect that the property of the petitioner is a local commercial area. Provisions of Chapter-15 of MPD-2021 would not be applicable. Chapter 16 alone would be applicable. Being a special area falling in the walled city of Chandani Chowk (City Hotel, admittedly being located at Ajmeri Gate) a status quo qua all these properties has to be maintained. The petitioner is protected.

4. On behalf of the petitioner arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.C. Mahendroo. Apart from the pleadings it has additionally been pointed out that the plea set up by the respondent that the street of the petitioner falls in a residential area is even otherwise negatived for the reason that the shop of the petitioner has two entrances and the entrance which is being used by him opens out on the commercial side. It cannot be termed as “residential”. Additional argument raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is even otherwi